People back then apparently thought of the Great Plains as being the Great American Desert due to lack of widespread forests. They might not mind as much then. Having the British keeping the Americans hemmed in may be in their better interests, if they can keep on good terms with New England and at least move the border to the true source of the Mississippi rather than the incorrect one at the Lake of the Woods. There will of course be a larger British Oregon. If the Americans will accept more immigrants is questionable so they may need to go elsewhere, though they might come anyways while the rural Americans move into Indian territory or sliding bat the British into Texas. Depending on whether or not Louisiana is Spanish, Indian, or British at this point. Northern New Spain is still probably tempting for some Southerners and Westerners(at that time any American west of the Appalachians).
Questions about a decisive British victory in the War of 1812
- Thread starter Masky
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
Except the foundational issue is that the Western Hemisphere
Except the foundational issue is that the Western Hemisphere was always a secondary theater for the European powers - even (at times) tertiary, as opposed to 1) Europe and 2) the Mediterranean and points east (at times).
And the real converse is that it was the above reality that contributed to independence in the Americas (north and south); no Anglo-French wars means no revolutions in the Americas (north and south), essentially - there's nothing to fight over, whether "external" threats, internal taxation and representation, conflict between "Europeans" and "Americans" (or peninsulares and criollos), etc.
The American Revolution broke out as a direct consequence of the Anglo-American conquest of New France; the revolutions in Spanish America and Brazil as a consequence of the Napoleonic wars; Haitian independence was a result of the French Revolution (and, by extension, of the American Revolution)...the Atlantic world was deeply connected in terms of political and geo-strategic issues from 1600 onwards.
The point I'm making is absent the European great power conflicts, there would not have been independent nation states in the Western Hemisphere; but without European great power conflicts, there would not have been an Atlantic world in any recognizable form.
Best,
Except the foundational issue is that the Western Hemisphere was always a secondary theater for the European powers - even (at times) tertiary, as opposed to 1) Europe and 2) the Mediterranean and points east (at times).
And the real converse is that it was the above reality that contributed to independence in the Americas (north and south); no Anglo-French wars means no revolutions in the Americas (north and south), essentially - there's nothing to fight over, whether "external" threats, internal taxation and representation, conflict between "Europeans" and "Americans" (or peninsulares and criollos), etc.
The American Revolution broke out as a direct consequence of the Anglo-American conquest of New France; the revolutions in Spanish America and Brazil as a consequence of the Napoleonic wars; Haitian independence was a result of the French Revolution (and, by extension, of the American Revolution)...the Atlantic world was deeply connected in terms of political and geo-strategic issues from 1600 onwards.
The point I'm making is absent the European great power conflicts, there would not have been independent nation states in the Western Hemisphere; but without European great power conflicts, there would not have been an Atlantic world in any recognizable form.
Best,
Last edited:
Simply solved in this particular case with a POD where the Napoleonic Wars end a bit earlier.
If Napoleon is killed during one of the battles he participated in during the War of the Sixth Coalition for example the British would be more than able to transfer a large chunk of their mobilised forces from Europe to America. Why not give Cousin Jonathan the sound thrashing he clearly deserves?
TFSmith121
Banned
Then some other general takes over
Then some other general takes over in Paris, and the French are still right across the Channel, and Britain continues to face the same strategic situation.
And, if it's not the French, it's the Dutch.
Or the Spanish.
Or the Prussians.
Or the Russians.
The bit from "Yes, Minister" is funny because it resonates...
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker: Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister.
[laughs]
James Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Best,
Simply solved in this particular case with a POD where the Napoleonic Wars end a bit earlier. If Napoleon is killed during one of the battles he participated in during the War of the Sixth Coalition for example the British would be more than able to transfer a large chunk of their mobilised forces from Europe to America. Why not give Cousin Jonathan the sound thrashing he clearly deserves?
Then some other general takes over in Paris, and the French are still right across the Channel, and Britain continues to face the same strategic situation.
And, if it's not the French, it's the Dutch.
Or the Spanish.
Or the Prussians.
Or the Russians.
The bit from "Yes, Minister" is funny because it resonates...
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
James Hacker: Surely we're all committed to the European ideal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister.
[laughs]
James Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Best,
Actually with the War of the Sixth Coalition, it was basically Napoleon's refusal to make peace which saw it dragged out as much as it was. Without him, cooler heads would have easily prevailed and a peace would have been made.
Far too weak to offer any real challenge at this point after the conquest of their homeland and their navy is negligible.
See above, but far, far worse. Spain had enough problems at this point and would be far too busy in South America and recovering from the Peninsular War.
Doubtful. Prussian strength was gravely hampered during the period and only the generosity of Russia, along with the complete collapse of France, allowed it to rise as high as it did. Without the continued conflicts through 1813-1814, Prussian power would be stymied.
The most likely contender but Russia was aching for British trade at this period and with a France balancing them out in Europe, they wouldn't be able to make such demands as they did at Vienna in OTL, thus negating the major source of tension between them and the British in 1815.
Generally what you'd see if Napoleon did fall early on in 1812 would be a France that could hold on, but without its greatest commander. Peace could very well fall in Europe should France bite the bullet and agree allowing the British to devote more resources to the US/Canada.
Without France being as overbearing as it was in the period of OTL, the wars could end and it'd be perfectly possible for the war in Canada to get greater emphasis.
TFSmith121
Banned
Actually, in 1812, Congress within two votes of declaring war on France.
Actually, in 1812, the United States Congress within two votes of declaring war on France. If Napoleon fell in 1812, it is quite possible the US would have joined in alliance with the British against French, if the war continues...
My point is that whatever the strategic situation on a given day might be, all the European powers had to deal with the reality that they were in Europe, and the Americans (north and south) were in the Western Hemisphere.
There was always a strategic interest in Europe that was going to outweigh whatever question was at issue in the Western Hemisphere, whenever the period, for any of the European powers.
Time and distance were always going to trump, especially when the European powers were always looking for a leg up against each other.
Best,
Actually, in 1812, the United States Congress within two votes of declaring war on France. If Napoleon fell in 1812, it is quite possible the US would have joined in alliance with the British against French, if the war continues...
My point is that whatever the strategic situation on a given day might be, all the European powers had to deal with the reality that they were in Europe, and the Americans (north and south) were in the Western Hemisphere.
There was always a strategic interest in Europe that was going to outweigh whatever question was at issue in the Western Hemisphere, whenever the period, for any of the European powers.
Time and distance were always going to trump, especially when the European powers were always looking for a leg up against each other.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Peter Hill's "Napoleon's Troublesome Americans"
Peter Hill's "Napoleon's Troublesome Americans" (Hill is a professor
emeritus at George Washington) is a pretty solid retelling; see:
http://books.google.com/books?id=FD...boATM7IFA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Best,
Peter Hill's "Napoleon's Troublesome Americans" (Hill is a professor
emeritus at George Washington) is a pretty solid retelling; see:
http://books.google.com/books?id=FD...boATM7IFA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Best,
usertron2020
Donor
Winston Churchill IIRC in his "History of the English Speaking Peoples" gave a good explanation of why it couldn't happen.
Britain couldn't in the Age of Sail make for a conquest of the Mississippi, which you needed to conquer the Central North American landmass. The lack of rails plus trans-oceanic distances in the Age of Sail meant that circumstances weren't much better for Britain than in the ARW fighting on the East Coast, except for the much larger battle-hardened army of Britain. Burning cities, plundering, but not able to stay with no land-based allies.
To effectively conquer (or at least "break") the USA meant gaining the Great Lakes. The level of development on the Canadian shores was so much more primitive than the American side that for every sloop the British could build, the Americans could build a brig. For every British brig, an American frigate. And if by extreme effort the British could even build frigates, the US OTL was building their first aquatic line-of-battleship. On Lake Erie, I believe.
The British would have had to sweep around every single last square inch of Great Lakes shoreline to prevent the US from building on the Lakes. Not going to happen. Besides, if Winston is to be believed, the US Navy in fresh water combat (a whole different animal from fighting on the high seas) could sail and fight rings around what the British put out on the Great Lakes.
Then of course there's the whole "We've been fighting the French in one fashion or another since Louis XVI fell and we've really had enough!"
TFSmith121
Banned
This sums it up
Walter Lord summed it up in this way:
"...as long as Napoleon was a threat, the British were willing to put up with back-breaking taxes - not only for their own forces, but their allies too. They had bankrolled the struggle for almost 20 years; now Bonaparte was gone and they wanted relief.
The American war was no way to get it. It cost a thousand guineas to ship a single cannon from Portsmouth to Lake Ontario. The Americans, on the other hand, were right on the spot. Even in their precarious financial condition, they could wage war at minimum cost. Their tax bill came to about one-twentieth the horrendous amount paid by long-suffering Britons."
Best,
Walter Lord summed it up in this way:
"...as long as Napoleon was a threat, the British were willing to put up with back-breaking taxes - not only for their own forces, but their allies too. They had bankrolled the struggle for almost 20 years; now Bonaparte was gone and they wanted relief.
The American war was no way to get it. It cost a thousand guineas to ship a single cannon from Portsmouth to Lake Ontario. The Americans, on the other hand, were right on the spot. Even in their precarious financial condition, they could wage war at minimum cost. Their tax bill came to about one-twentieth the horrendous amount paid by long-suffering Britons."
Best,
I think a false presumption is being made here. It's being said that if the British were doing better in Europe they would be able to defeat the United States in 1812. But whether or not it's true, surely we ought to consider that, from the American perspective, declaring war on a Britain occupied in the Napoleonic Wars is very different to declaring war on a Britain able to devote its full effort to fighting the USA. With the Napoleonic Wars over, the USA might not have declared war on Britain at all—especially since the various blockades and mercantile issues are likely to be dropped the moment the war is over.
The only way I can think of to get around this problem is if peace is established in Europe after the War of 1812 has started but before it is decided. But in that case it seems unlikely to me that Britain would send huge armies to fight the USA when the situation in Europe was still so unstable, for fear of being caught off-balance by a resumption of European warfare. I imagine that the opening few years of this own board's The Dead Skunk were Britain's nightmare scenario IOTL: British forces get distracted in some pointless little war over unimportant places no-one's ever heard of, and then the Continent goes to hell in a handbasket.
I'm not sure I agree that 19th-century Europe is always going to be too volatile for any European power to whole-heartedly go to war in the Americas, but straight after the Napoleonic Wars? You'd need something to stabilise the political situation in Europe, and I won't claim to have any ideas what that something might be.
The only way I can think of to get around this problem is if peace is established in Europe after the War of 1812 has started but before it is decided. But in that case it seems unlikely to me that Britain would send huge armies to fight the USA when the situation in Europe was still so unstable, for fear of being caught off-balance by a resumption of European warfare. I imagine that the opening few years of this own board's The Dead Skunk were Britain's nightmare scenario IOTL: British forces get distracted in some pointless little war over unimportant places no-one's ever heard of, and then the Continent goes to hell in a handbasket.
I'm not sure I agree that 19th-century Europe is always going to be too volatile for any European power to whole-heartedly go to war in the Americas, but straight after the Napoleonic Wars? You'd need something to stabilise the political situation in Europe, and I won't claim to have any ideas what that something might be.
usertron2020
Donor
Britain was blessed with excellent leadership both in the Napoleonic Wars and the Seven Years War. It was in the ARW that all the talent (for the most part) was in the Loyal Opposition. I don't think British leadership in 1812 would make the kind of idiot mistakes that were made by their predecessors from 1763-1782.
If George III still had his marbles and he had the same kind of idiots in charge in 1812 (comparatively) that he did in the ARW and the lead up to it, I could see massive diversions to Imperial interests, including North and South America. Of course, how long they could get away with that is up to debate. Not long IMO. OTOH, at this point in the war Napoleon is running into cataclysmic disaster in Russia. Only the Spanish Campaign might be affected, with more British resources going to non-European destinations.
Then again, if Britain was seen by the Russians as abandoning Europe for the sake of picking up new colonies...
Opinions?
Britain was blessed with excellent leadership both in the Napoleonic Wars and the Seven Years War. It was in the ARW that all the talent (for the most part) was in the Loyal Opposition. I don't think British leadership in 1812 would make the kind of idiot mistakes that were made by their predecessors from 1763-1782.
If George III still had his marbles and he had the same kind of idiots in charge in 1812 (comparatively) that he did in the ARW and the lead up to it, I could see massive diversions to Imperial interests, including North and South America. Of course, how long they could get away with that is up to debate. Not long IMO. OTOH, at this point in the war Napoleon is running into cataclysmic disaster in Russia. Only the Spanish Campaign might be affected, with more British resources going to non-European destinations.
Then again, if Britain was seen by the Russians as abandoning Europe for the sake of picking up new colonies...
Opinions?
Wait, I'm lost, what POD was being discussed?
Anyway, War of 1812 timelines that result in a drastically different North America are fairly ASB. The US really didn't have much of a chance of conquering Canada, and the British had very little interest in the war altogether. Additionally, even if they won decisively, the British wouldn't have even wanted to box the US entirely in. They would have taken the Great Lakes, but the biggest possible threat the British of the time saw the US becoming was a rival manufacturing and naval power. And early 19th century thought was, that as long as the US kept expanding west and had a very low population density, it would continue to be primarily a raw-materials exporter (which Britain liked) and in theory not move to manufacturing trade and an accompanying navy. Now, of course, in reality the US did experience the industrial revolution and move to being an industrial power, but I'm just outlining the prevailing economic theories of British politicians of the time and their attitude towards the United States.
Not that it would really matter. They had been all for Napoleon until Tallyrand gave a moral booster to the Tsar. Well, that or because they were angry that the French didn't give more support to annexing enormous swathes of Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, and the Ottomans. I also recall reading somewhere that a Russian spoke to an Englishman and was astonished by how the Englishman didn't seem to find too much of a problem with the Thirteen Colonies and their liabilities being given up. Apparently he claimed that the Tsar would have committed suicide or abdicated if he lost even one. As the British had been in the Napoleonic Wars the longest and had mostly managed to regain or snatch up some Dutch colonies (mostly in areas that had the Dutch and British colonies and ports being side by side by side), taking a bit more shouldn't be too bad. Of course the British would be unlikely to want them and it might open up issues with some Bourbons or Habsburgs saying that because they were kicked out of Tuscany (part of what was traded for Louisiana), they should get Louisiana. That or sell it to the British to pay off some of their war debt or to get support to suppress the rebellions in New Spain.Then again, if Britain was seen by the Russians as abandoning Europe for the sake of picking up new colonies...
Opinions?
Actually, OTL the British and Americans were relatively comparable in ship building capacity on the Lakes. Its just that the US siezed the initiative, got effective control of the lakes, and held them. In fact, the largest vessel built on the Lakes was British, a first rater named the StLawrence. Its just that it wasnt finished before the war was over.
Also, because the US controlled LAke Ontario early, the Brits couldnt ship supplies west by water, which made the ship building effort on the upper lakes far less efficient.
Even so, if the British commander on Erie had stayed around another ?day? He would have caught Perry's unarmed shipped crossing the bar and slaughtered them.
Really, with a couple of changes in personel and/or a wee bit of luck, the British could easiily have siezed and kept control of the Lakes. It was a very near run thing iotl.
As for keeping the US out of the former Louisiana Purchase, the Brits could demob their Napoleonic War armies in the new territories, together with their families (who otl were mostly abandoned to starve, as soldiers marriages were not officially recognized).
This, together with the preexisting French and Native population would be enough to police American settlers coming west for land.
My TL adds more Canadian settlers, which helps, but it really is doable with otl population figures.
You just need Britain to CARE enough, really. Which may be the toughest thing.
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
It's worth pointing out that the Congress of Vienna settlement
The best anyone could come up with was the Congress of Vienna settlement, and it's worth pointing out that the Congress of Vienna settlement really only lasted until the 1820s and Greek independence.
Navarino was the last time the British and Russians were really in allignment, and they still had to make room for the French; after that, the Eastern Question was underlying everything, even with 1854-55.
And at the same time that was simmering came the conflict between Prussia and Austria over primacy in an (as yet) unorganized Germany; and once that was settled in the 1860s, the Franco-German conflict was set in motion.
And the above were all intra-state conflicts; the internal issues that led to the '48 revolutions, for example, were present in embryo in the 'teens.
Again, I don't see a time in the Nineteenth Century where any of the European powers could attempt anything resembling a major conflict in the Western Hemisphere; even if one could find a time when the stars alligned for one or the other, the liklihood the rival power in Europe would find it - as you state - the perfect time to find something to fight about would be obvious.
Best,
The best anyone could come up with was the Congress of Vienna settlement, and it's worth pointing out that the Congress of Vienna settlement really only lasted until the 1820s and Greek independence.
Navarino was the last time the British and Russians were really in allignment, and they still had to make room for the French; after that, the Eastern Question was underlying everything, even with 1854-55.
And at the same time that was simmering came the conflict between Prussia and Austria over primacy in an (as yet) unorganized Germany; and once that was settled in the 1860s, the Franco-German conflict was set in motion.
And the above were all intra-state conflicts; the internal issues that led to the '48 revolutions, for example, were present in embryo in the 'teens.
Again, I don't see a time in the Nineteenth Century where any of the European powers could attempt anything resembling a major conflict in the Western Hemisphere; even if one could find a time when the stars alligned for one or the other, the liklihood the rival power in Europe would find it - as you state - the perfect time to find something to fight about would be obvious.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Except that the British needed an Atlantic blockading force,
Except that the British needed an Atlantic blockading force, and a Gulf blockading force, and naval forces in European waters, and in the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific, and to convoy British merchantmen and transports, and to hunt down US raiders, and - then - naval forces on Lake Champlain, and Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario, etc.
All the Americans really ever needed to control was Lake Champlain and Lakes Ontario and Erie.
Empires are difficult things to defend. There's a reason they collapse.
Best,
Except that the British needed an Atlantic blockading force, and a Gulf blockading force, and naval forces in European waters, and in the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific, and to convoy British merchantmen and transports, and to hunt down US raiders, and - then - naval forces on Lake Champlain, and Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario, etc.
All the Americans really ever needed to control was Lake Champlain and Lakes Ontario and Erie.
Empires are difficult things to defend. There's a reason they collapse.
Best,
Well yes, there's going to be a need to Europe over the Americas for Britain to defend their interests their. But, if there is peace in Europe, the resources can and will shift towards the North America theatre. There wouldn't be as much focus as there would the Napoleonic Wars, but there wouldn't have to be as such. Depending on what victory the UK is after (And really, it'd only be a limited one), the manpower and resources could be gathered to gain the advantage without sacrificing everything in a Europe that's peaceful.